Editorial: Disputed teachers union dues closer to high court

The California Teachers Association apparently thinks it scored a major legal victory last week when a federal judge in Santa Ana dismissed a lawsuit challenging the public teachers union’s collection of fees from nonmember teachers for both collective bargaining purposes and political activity.

“It’s always satisfying when the courts side with working people and the right of their unions to protect and defend them,” said a statement released by CTA president Dean Vogel.

But Judge Josephine Staton did not really “side” with the union in a lawsuit by Orange County teacher Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other aggrieved teachers from around the state.

In fact, the federal jurist could not issue a ruling invalidating mandatory “agency fees,” which usually are the same amount as union dues, and which are imposed upon nonunion members – like Ms. Friedrichs and her fellow plaintiffs.

Nor could the judge declare that the burden should not be on nonunion members to “opt out” of paying a portion of their agency fee for union political activity, but on unions to persuade nonmembers to “opt in.”

That’s because Judge Staton was bound by a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which “upheld the constitutional validity of compelling employees to support a particular collective bargaining representative.”

She also was bound by the high court’s 1992 decision in Mitchell v. Los Angeles Unified School District, which “rejected the notion that the only funds from nonunion members that a union constitutionally could use for political or ideological causes were those funds that the nonunion members affirmatively consented to pay.”

With Judge Staton’s options effectively limited by the Supreme Court, she essentially chose to punt the lawsuit, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. And that is exactly the outcome the plaintiffs’ legal team had hoped for.

The plaintiffs’ ultimate goal is to reach the Supreme Court, explained Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights. His nonprofit public interest group is working alongside the law firm Jones Day on behalf of the aggrieved teachers.

It is true, Mr. Pell told us, that the high court sided before with labor unions over dissenting nonmembers – like Ms. Friedrichs, who objects to the CTA using her compulsory agency fees to support political candidates and causes with which she disagrees.

But he points to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Knoxville v. Service Employees International Union as a sign that the justices are ready to reconsider the court’s 36-year-old ruling in Abood and 21-year-old ruling in Mitchell.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito declared, “[B]y allowing unions to collect any fees from nonmembers and by permitting unions to use opt-out rather than out-in schemes when annual dues are billed, our cases have substantially impinged upon the First Amendment rights of nonmembers.”

So, while the CTA celebrated Judge Staton’s ruling last week, the union really had nothing to celebrate. All the ruling did was clear the way for Ms. Friedrich’s lawsuit to advance to the 9th Circuit (where, we suspect, the judges will uphold Judge Staton).

Then it will be off to the Supreme Court, where the justices very well could issue a final decision that neither the powerful CTA, nor other public employee unions, will celebrate.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.